Beyond Identity Politics

I’m assuming, based on the facts as they stand so far (Florida neck-and-neck with 80% counted, North Carolina still not called, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan all called for Obama), that the odds are pretty high that the President is going to be reelected tonight.

As I said this morning, that shouldn’t be terribly surprising. Knowing only that Obama is an incumbent President who didn’t face a primary challenge, and that the economy is growing (if modestly), you’d expect him to be reelected (if by a modest margin).

Assuming that pans out, there’s going to be a lot of post-mortem discussion about what the GOP “must” do to get back in the game. A lot of these discussions will center on demographics – how Republicans have to win more of the Hispanic vote, or more of the secular vote, or more of the woman’s vote.

In my view, this is completely backwards.

This analysis would only be true if it was impossible to increase Republican margins among white voters/male voters/religious voters to offset their losses elsewhere. And I haven’t heard a cogent argument why that would be the case.

Based on exit polls, Romney has captured a percentage of the white vote comparable to the 1984 Reagan percentage. But, to look at it another way, the white vote still dominates the Democratic part of the electorate – over 60% of the Democratic vote came from white voters. Something like 45% of men will have voted Democratic. 41% of those who attend religious services weekly will have voted Democratic. If the goal is increased demographic polarization, there’s plenty of room for either or both parties to pursue such polarization.

The question is not whether you can win in the future on the basis of demographic polarization. The question is what the consequences would be – for the demographic groups in question, and for the country as a whole.

In my view, the fact that black and Hispanic voters overwhelmingly prefer the Democratic party hurts black and Hispanic voters more than it hurts the Republicans. Republicans don’t need to court these voters – these voters need to court the Republican Party. The fact that highly religious white voters overwhelmingly prefer the Republican party hurts highly religious white voters more than it hurts the Democrats. The Democrats don’t need to court these voters – these voters need to court the Democratic Party. And polarization on the basis of identity hurts the country more than it hurts either party.

Trench warfare is bad for privates – they get slaughtered going over the top – but good for generals – the front lines don’t move much, so nothing is likely to happen that will get them canned.

The changing shape of the competing electoral coalitions is interesting, and tells us something about what each party is likely to do. But the median voter theorem dictates that no coalition can achieve long-term dominance. So what all Americans should want is for these coalitions to be maximally fluid, because that is what will keep the government accountable.

MORE IN POLITICS

Hide 5 comments

5 Responses to Beyond Identity Politics

I give this piece a mixed review. It’s refreshing to hear a conservative point out–as so few are doing–that the white vote could have made this a big win for Romney, but that it broke hard for the other guy. The fact that the white vote was so divided is what hurt him, not the “overwhelming” demographic shift that is being touted.

BUT, I think it is naive and reality-denying to believe that any courting of any kind will make people steeped in 50 years of victim acculturation–blacks especially–attracted to a philosophy of prudence, self-reliance and smaller government. It isn’t just naive; it’s dishonest. The Republican party should not shift gears from being surreptitiously dishonest about things like globalization being good for Ohio factories to being overtly and insanely dishonest about the possibility of convincing the dwellers of inner-city New Orleans that Russell Kirk was smarter than Malcolm X.

I think the whole framework of analyzing things through “identity politics” is broken. Large swaths of specific minority groups don’t vote Republican not because of abstract values of “prudence, self-reliance and smaller government” , but because of concrete policies and until Republican’s realize that its all a moot point. African-American’s don’t vote Democratic because of “accultration” but because Democrat’s went to bat for them for civil rights legislation, economic policies that attempted to redress historic economic poverty, and inclusion of elected officials. Hispanics generally go for Democrat’s due to a perception, less than real, of their pro-immigration stance. These are real distinct policies that affect specific groups but have little concern or impact for white voters. One could argue whether these policies has their intended effects, or if the Democratic party is honest in going thru with them, but coming in and telling people in predominantly black area’s that they are simply not voting right because they are victims isn’t going to cut it.

The reality is when minority voters hear “prudence, self-reliance and smaller government” they understand it to mean that there is no social support system, no assistance in times of trouble, and a government that will take away or ignore issues within their communities. Thats not going to be a winning recipe. You have to explain what those ideals translate for someone in a historically dis-advantaged area. As long you keep ranting on about abstract concepts that don’t relate to people’s everyday lives you’re going to be up a creek.

Removing ‘Identity’ from politics is a nice sentiment, but a quixotic goal. I certainly would like to see the GOP ‘reach out’ to Hispanics on a non-amnesty basis. Indeed I’d like to see the GOP, or really restrictionists, do a better job of explaining the negative impact that continued large scale immigration has on them (even open borders economists who find ‘no’ impact off immigration on lower educated native-born workers admit that earlier immigrants are hurt by flooding the market with workers with exactly their same characteristics). But of course such ‘outreach’ presupposes a Hispanic identity.

Even in Israel, a country with a strong, ethnoreligiously based founding idea, there is powerful element of (sub?)ethnic identity politics, strangely mirroring our ow, with the newer, immigrant or first generation Sephardis voting 60-80 percent ‘Right’ and established, mostly Askenazi parties voting Left at around 60-70 percent. If you look at electoral maps of Spain, the Left consists of the culturally peripheral Catalan and Basque regions (relatively wealthy), and the poorer region of Andalucia), while the Right consists of the Central, Castillian speaking regions, plus Galicia (home to Franco). This pattern is even evident (more or less) in the 1936 election, and has been fairly steady in the restored democracy.

Well, then I’ll speak plainer. Old habits will die harder and longer than the demographic stability of this country will last. The conversion of minorities to the Conservative mindset would be so slow as to be fruitless. And, having lived briefly in Malmo, Sweden when huge numbers of non-Whites arrived, I believe firmly that American society will disintegrate in relation to its declining Whiteness. Ugly truth. But truth nonetheless.

Demographics needn’t and shouldn’t be an issue for either party. Simply outline a plan for resolving present issues and demonstrate a vision for building a common future. Bonus points if both plan and vision ignore fantasists with big mouths and deep pockets. Then open the polls and let the country decide which social construct it wants to pay for. Really, that’s all there is to it.